Marbles.

            How’s your hair today? Is it properly socialized?

            I read Kobena Mercer’s piece Black Hair/Style Politics today, and she has some great points regarding the ‘cultivation’ of hair and the symbolism it evokes, particularly for blacks.

            [Take note that when I use the term ‘black hair’, I am referring not to the colour of the hair, but to the hair of people of African descent.]

            As many know, black hair is very unique in its nature, with distinctive kinks and curls, along with a typical coarse texture. This does not fit into the Western ideal/tradition of ‘good hair’ - straight, soft and blonde for women and brunet for men. Thus, the process of hair preparation for blacks living in Western cultures can be extensive. In Mercer’s piece, she examines the notion of  “cultivation”.

                        “When the hair is completely dry, you start cultivating it with a hot             comb ... now the hair is all straight.” (422)  -A hairdresser describes the process of hair straightening.

             In essence, to cultivate means to bring out something of value from something that has none. Because of this notion, the natural state of black hair is labelled worthless. By extension, unkempt hair receives the same label. The mindset coerces people to feel the need to cultivate their hair into the closest possible semblance of the Western ideal.

            The introduction of the afro and dreadlocks into black hair style made a powerful statement of black pride, celebrating the ‘natural’ character of their hair. Because they were styles that could only be properly worn by blacks, they were seen as a source of racial pride and an ethnic signifier. Mercer recognizes this as demonstrative of hair’s unique status as a natural feature with a political statement. Is there a comparable human characteristic with the same ability to combine aesthetics with political ideals? The message a hairstyle carries changes between its appropriations between subcultures. Skinheads - commonly associated with anti-black racism - wore hairstyles similar to that of black men. Instead of a model where one hairstyle means one thing, Mercer posits, “diversity of contemporary hairstyles is something to be proud of” because the inventive nature of style should be valued. This unity in diversity, Mercer says, is an “aspect of Africa’s ‘gift’ to modernity” (435).

            This plurality equates to a sort of equality through mutual difference. Encouraging uniqueness creates a culture of difference, a culture with less rigid categorization. If every individual has their own category, what purpose do the categories serve?

            I liken this to a bag of five marbles. Each marble is a different colour, has different texture and has a unique degree of opacity. What point is there in categorizing these marbles if they share no similarities but their identity as marbles? On a much grander scale, humans with varied styles cultivate an image in order to fit into a predetermined category. Even those who purposely try to avoid fitting into a category unconsciously form a category of their own.

            How does this entrapment relate to hairstyles? It’s quite simple, really. An infinitesimally small number of people do nothing to “cultivate” their hair. Those who don’t often cannot. As there is no way to escape entrapment into a subculture or the mainstream, there is no way to escape the pressure of society to do something to your hair.